FINAL REPORT. December 2010 SALT LAKE COUNTY

Transcription

1 SOUTHWEST SALT LAKE COUNTY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT December 2010 Prepared By: Prepared For: SALT LAKE COUNTY

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... ES-1 1. Introduction... 1 Stakeholder Guidance... 1 Public Outreach... 1 Student Involvement Study Area Purpose and Need for the Project... 8 What is Purpose and Need... 8 Problems Identified in the Study Area... 8 Goals Purpose Need Evaluation Methodology and Criteria Development of Alternatives Transit Modes Identification of Alternative Alignments Screening of Alternative alignments Physical Constraints Analysis of Final Alternatives Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Preferred Alternative Route Description Station Locations Optimization and Off-Model Forecasting Performance Draper Extension Alternatives Physical Constraints Next Steps and Implementation Future Studies Needed Land Use Considerations (preparing for the success of transit) Phasing considerations Additional Studies APPENDICES Appendix A: Public Comment... A Appendix B: TOD Guidelines and Toolbox... B i

3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES-1 Short List of Alternatives... ES-7 Figure ES-2 Preferred Alternative... ES-8 Figure 1 Study Area... 5 Figure 2 Relevant Studies and Projects... 7 Figure 3 Population and Employment Growth between 2005 and Figure 4 Existing and Future Travel Demand Figure 5 Peak Period Congestion in Figure 6 Future Land Use Projections Results of Stakeholder Workshop Figure 7 Long List of Alignments Population and Employment Totals for Potential Stations Figure 8 Physical Constraints of Long List of Alignments Figure 9 Short List Alternative A Figure 10 Short List Alternative B Figure 12 Short List Alternative D Figure 13 Short List Alternative E Figure 14 Preferred Alternative Figure 15 Herriman Transportation Plan LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Demographic Projections for Study Area... 4 Table 2 Evaluation Criteria Table 3 Universe to Long List Mode Evaluation Table 4 Summary Comparison of Alternatives Table 5 Alternative A Performance Table 6 Alternative B Performance Table 7 Alternative C Performance Table 8 Alternative D Performance Table 9 Alternative E Performance Table 10 Summary Comparison of Alternatives (2040) Table 11 Preferred Alternative Performance Table 12 Reduction in Study area VMT Table 13 Reduction in Vehicle Emissions ii

4 ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Southwest Salt Lake County Transit Feasibility Study began in March 2010 under the direction of the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC). The purpose of this Feasibility Study was to identify a realistic and suitable highfrequency/high-capacity transit project to serve the communities of South Jordan, Herriman, Riverton, Bluffdale, and Draper, that connects the end of the Mid-Jordan TRAX line at the Daybreak subdivision in South Jordan and the FrontRunner station in Draper. To prepare this project for future study, and to avoid duplication of effort, this study followed a modified Alternatives Analysis approach to identify the purpose and need for a project, determine alternatives, and screen alternatives to arrive at a preferred alternative. This report documents each of the steps associated with this Feasibility Study. The public process for this study was a multi-level approach to educate residents, business owners, and city officials about the potential for transit in the area and solicit input and comments. Outreach efforts consisted of an open house and a public workshop, a website survey, and University of Utah Urban Planning student involvement. STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE Bluffdale City Vaughn Pickell, City Planner Draper City Russell Fox, Comm. Development Director Herriman City Gordon Haight, City Engineer Heather Upshaw, Planner Property Reserve, Inc. Mike Hathorne, Senior Planning Manager Rio Tinto Jon Osier, Senior Transportation Specialist Riverton City Jeff Hawker, Assistant City Manager Ryan Carter, City Attorney Salt Lake County Max Johnson, County Planner South Jordan City Gary Whatcott, Assistant City Manager Utah Dept. of Transportation Tim Rose, Region 2 Deputy Director Utah Transit Authority GJ LaBonty, Planner Wasatch Front Regional Council Jory Johner, Project Manager Doug Hattery, Deputy Director STUDY AREA The Study Area is a 33-square-mile region in the southwestern portion of Salt Lake County, Utah, and includes portions of South Jordan City, Herriman City, Riverton City, Bluffdale, and Draper. The general Study Area boundaries are 6000 West on the west, 200 West on the east, South on the south, and South on the north. Population is growing in this area of the Salt Lake Valley, perhaps faster than any other region in the Wasatch Front. Demographic projections are shown in Table ES -1. TABLE ES- 1 DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS FOR STUDY AREA Change Percent Change Population 77, , , % Households 20,400 69,100 48, % Total Employment 21, ,600 90, % Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council, summarized by Fehr & Peers (August 2010).

5 ES-2 PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE STUDY AREA A careful analysis of the existing and future conditions in the Study Area was undertaken to understand the problems facing the southwestt area of Salt Lake County. The following problem statements were identified as a result of analyzing the future transportationn conditions in the Study Area. Based on population and employment projections, and travel demand projections, the following were identified as the top three issues related to transportation in Southwest Salt Lake County: 1. Limited access to transit in the southwest area of Salt Lake County The Mid-Jordapopulation, employment, and travel needs of the southwest part of Salt Lake County grow, there is no TRAX extension will serve the Daybreak subdivision in South Jordan, but as the plan for high-frequency/high-capacity transit to serve those trips beyond the last station of this extension. This limited access to higher-speed and higher-frequency transit hinders the choice to ride transit. 2. Inability of the transportation network to accommodate the increase in travel demand due to residential and employment growth. The Study Area is unique in that it includes some of the only remaining contiguous open lands in Salt Lake County, and these contiguous parcels provide an opportunity for an increase in residential and office development. The planned growth in population and employment will increase demand on the transportation system. On a regional scale, daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is expected to grow from 37 million to 65 million, comparing between current conditions and a freeway-oriented growth option (Source: WFRC Long Range Plan). This equates to a growth of 78%. Between 2005 and 2040, daily VMT is forecasted to increase by 254% within the Study Area - this equates to an average annual growth of 3.7%. By 2040, as much as 25% of p.m. peak period VMT in the Study Area is expected to occur on congested roads at or near capacity, contributing to low travel speeds and high levels of delay. 3. Increasing difficulty traveling east/west in the Study Area The Salt Lake Valley has long devoted resources to moving people in a north-south direction, but more recent needs have been identified to move people east-west. By 2040, all of the major east-west arterials in the Study Area west of Bangerter Highway will be highly congested, including South, South, and South. East of Bangerter Highway, both South and South will be congested. Without robust transit infrastructure, travelers will lack choice to avoid this congestion. A purpose statement was developed to reflect the goals of the project. The purpose of a transit project is to better connect the southwest area of Salt Lake County with the regional transit system in order to improve transportation choice and mobility within the Study Area, as well as improved access to important regional destinations. The project needs address the problems identifiedd in this Study Area, and move towards meeting the goals of the project team. The project needs are: To provide additional capacity to the transportation network in the Study Area To reduce the negative effects associated with population and employment growth, and congestion

6 ES-3 To support local land use plans to diversify and densify land use, ncluding job centers and mixed-use developments Provide additional transportation options to enhance livability and sustainability for the communities in the Study Area DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES The preliminary screening of alternatives consisted of an evaluation of both mode and alignment. Preliminary screening included the following levels of analysis: Mode Evaluation. Mode evaluation included the consideration of a universe of modes, and then narrowed the list to the most applicable modes for this context. Alignment Evaluation. Preliminary alignment evaluation included a universe to long list analysis, and a long list to short list evaluation. In addition, a workshop was conducted with the Stakeholders to understand important origins and destinations, and to gather plans for future land use changes that could support transit oriented development. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The Long List of Alignments was refined and paired with Alternatives, as shown in Figure ES-1: transit modes to create the Short List of Alternative A Standard bus operating on South Alternative B Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to Herriman Towne Center, 3600 West, South Alternative C BRT using the Power Utility Corridor, South Alternative D BRT to Herriman Towne Center, South, Bangerter Highway Alternative E Mid-Jordan TRAX extension to Herriman Towne Center with BRT on 3600 West and South Table ES-3, located on page ES-6, compares each of the Short List Alternatives under 2040 conditions. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The selection of Preferred Alternative was guided by the application of the established criteria, a Stakeholder meeting to discuss the merits of each of the alternatives, and one-on-one discussionss with each Stakeholder. In addition, each of the alternatives was presented at a public workshop, and was available for comment on the WFRC website. The Preferred Alternative is Alternative B (from the Short List of Alternatives) with additional refinements made to the alignment. These revisions included: Refinement of the alignment exiting the Daybreak sub-division and continuing to Herriman Re-routing of the alignment to avoid a grade-separated crossing of Bangerter Highway between major intersections while still accessing the planned transit oriented development at the PRI property.

7 ES-4 Addition of a short and long term alignment to connect the FrontRunner station in Draper to either South/900 East TRAX station (short-term) or future Draper TRAX end of line. The Preferred Alternative, shown in Figure ES-2, is Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). At approximately 9.8 miles in length, the route will complete a one-way end-to-end trip in 23 minutes at an averagee speed of 26 miles per hour. The route connects the Mid-Jordan TRAX Daybreak station to the FrontRunner station in Draper. The figure below shows station-level boardings, including off-model projections shown in red- which might not be reflected in the WFRC model, special generators such as the Salt Lake Community College Herriman Campus, and improved access to transit with an enhanced walkable network. Working with Herriman and Riverton, specific station areas were chosen to develop off-model estimates. The estimates were prepared for stations at the Salt Lake Community College Herriman Campus, Herriman Towne Center, a potential PRI development in Riverton, and for a parcel near South and dashed lines. Off-model projections were prepared to predict ridership ncluding demographic changes 2700 West. Performance In addition to applying the criteria developed to compare among alternatives, an additional analysis reflects the ability of this alternative to meet some key sustainability measures in This alternatives shows a reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and hence vehicle emissions. The BRT would reduce VMT by approximately 22,000 daily miles, and save over 3 million kilograms per year in carbon dioxide vehicle emissions. TABLE ES-2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCEE Distance in miles (one way) Travel time (one way) Frequency Daily Ridership Range 1 UTA System Ridership Increase Conceptual Capital Cost (millions) minutes 15 minutes (peak and off-peak periods) 2,700-3,100 2,800-3,200 $ Cost/Benefit (Ridership + Cost) Medium Service to Herriman Towne Center, PRI parcel, and employment area on Support for TOD plans 3600 West. Some likelihood development will increase ridership, and cost effectiveness will improve. Construction Challenges Crossings at Mountain View Corridor (2), and Bangerter Highway. Capacity Improvements Improves capacity by approximately 13% in each direction. 1. Ridership estimatee from 2040 WFRC travel model, summarized by Fehr & Peers. 2. Capital Costs usually include right of way, vehicles, construction, finance costs, management, other procurement, and design.

8 ES-5 Draper Extension Alternatives From the Draper FrontRunner station at South, the Preferred Alternative could extend east on South, connecting to either of the planned light rail stations at South or Draper Town Center (12400 South). This extension would be 2.5 to 3 miles in length and increase route ridership of the Preferred Alternative by roughly 27% by attracting additional riders on the extension segment and also increasing ridership at stations west of FrontRunner. Eventually the Draper TRAX Full Build scenario will extend to South, and provide another opportunity to link transit routes. This 2.5-to-3-mile alignment is highly dependent on the maturation of land use and infrastructure surrounding the FrontRunner station at South. This maturation includes among other things, a structure to cross the Frontrunner corridor and the future redevelopment of the Utah State Prison property. These options are shown in Figure ES-2. Next Steps and Implementation This Feasibility Study is the first step towards implementing a transit project. Several subsequent studies will be necessary including an Alternatives Analysis, Financial Feasibility Study, Environmental Study, Preliminary Engineering, and Incorporation into local plans. Land Use Considerations (preparing for the success of transit) Throughout the study there has been focus on transit-oriented development as a means to support a future high-frequency/high-capacity major transit investment. To prepare for such a transit investment, below are suggested next steps for cities in southwest Salt Lake County that wish to develop transitsupportive plans or to implement zoning (or other) ordinances. These suggested steps are intended to aid cities as they develop and implement TOD planning in their jurisdiction in order to achieve a desired result. Steps include: 1. Clarify areas to explore station area planning 2. Categorize potential station areas by type 3. Develop your planning approach for each station type 4. Develop planning products (overlay, small area plan, district, etc) before development applications are anticipated. Phasing Considerations Because of the flexibility of BRT, this technology may be implemented in a variety of ways, and phasing options should be considered. In the short term, communities in the Study Area may consider beginning bus service along this route, and increasing frequency as it is warranted. Over time, and as demand increases, other amenities may be added, such as signal priority or station development. As demand increases further, and funding is secured, the project would evolve into its final state. With a vision towards the future, and if demand warrants such an upgrade, it may be advantageous to preserve additional right of way (a total of 28 ) to allow for a future light rail line.

9 ES-6 TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES (2040) Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Distance in miles (one way) Travel time (one way) min (incl. 5 min transfer) Daily Ridership Range ,100-3,500 2,800-3,200 2,400-2,800 5,500-5,900 UTA System Ridership Increase Conceptual Capital Cost (millions) 700-1,100 2,600-3,000 2,400-2,800 3,000-3,400 2,900-3,300 Minimal $140-$187 $111-$148 $149-$199 $217-$280 Cost/Benefit (Ridership + Cost) N/A Medium High Medium Low Support for TOD plans Construction Challenges Does not support TOD development No new construction Service to Herriman Towne Center, PRI parcel, and employment area on 3600 West. High likelihood development will increase ridership, and cost effectiveness. Crossings at Mountain View Corridor (2), and Bangerter Highway. Few TOD plans on this alignment Challenges associated with utility corridor Service to Herriman Towne Center, PRI parcel, employment area on 3600 West, and parcel at 2700 W/13400 S. High likelihood development will increase ridership, and cost effectiveness. Crossings at Mountain View Corridor (2), Bangerter Highway, FrontRunner corridor. Service to Herriman Towne Center and PRI parcel. Some likelihood development will increase ridership, and cost effectiveness. Crossings at Mountain View Corridor (2), and Bangerter Highway. 1. Ridership estimate from 2040 WFRC travel model, summarized by Fehr & Peers. Ridership estimates do not include additional off-model forecasts which were prepared using Direct Ridership Forecasting. 6

10 SOUTH Jordan River BANGERTER HWY 2700 WEST REDWOOD ROAD 1300 WEST Future SLCC Campus Herriman Towne Center Mid-Jordan LRT Daybreak Mid-Jordan End of Line Utah Power & Light Power Corridor Riverton Hospital Riverton High School SOUTH SOUTH BANGERTER HWY Riverton City Hall MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR Alternative A Alternative B/E Alternative C Alternative D Rail Station Future Rail SOUTH HIGHLAND HIGHLAND DR DR Short List of Alternatives FIGURE ES-1

11 Future SLCC Campus Herriman Towne Center Mid-Jordan TRAX Daybreak End of Line MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR Possible Future Redevelopment BANGERTER HWY Riverton Hospital 3600 WEST Riverton High School Possible Future Redevelopment 2700 WEST SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH BANGERTER HWY Riverton City Hall PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REDWOOD ROAD 1300 WEST Jordan River 15 FrontRunner Commuter Rail South Draper Station Miles MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN VIEW VIEW CORRIDOR CORRIDOR Miles Miles WESTERN TERMINUS OPTIONS EASTERN TERMINUS OPTION #1 EASTERN TERMINUS OPTION #2 Draper Town Center TRAX Station Miles South TRAX Station Preferred Alignment Western Terminus Options Eastern Terminus Option #1 Eastern Terminus Option #2 Potential Stations Commuter Rail/TRAX Station Preferred Alternative FIGURE ES-2

12 1 1. INTRODUCTION The Southwest Salt Lake County Transit Feasibility Study began in March 2010 under the direction of the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC). The purpose of this feasibility study was to identify a realistic and suitable high-frequency/high-capacity transit project to serve the communities of South Jordan, Herriman, Riverton, Bluffdale, and Draper, and that would ultimately connect the end of the Mid-Jordan TRAX line at Daybreak subdivision in South Jordan, and the FrontRunner station in Draper. To prepare this project for future study, and to avoid duplication of effort, this study followed a modified Alternatives Analysis approach to identifying the purpose and need for a project, determining alternatives, and screening alternatives to arrive at a preferred alternative. This report documents each of the steps associated with this Feasibility Study. STAKEHOLDER GUIDANCE The Southwest Salt Lake County Feasibility Study was a collaborative effort between the WFRC, the Utah Transit Authority (UTA), the cities of South Jordan, Herriman, Riverton, Bluffdale, and Draper, Salt Lake County, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), Rio Tinto and Property Reserve, Inc. Representatives from each of these groups participated on a Stakeholder Committee, which was responsible for making the decisions to advance a transit project. The Stakeholder Committee met eight times during the course of the project. PUBLIC OUTREACH The public process for this study was a multi-leveled approach to educate residents, business owners, and city officials about the potential for transit in the area and receive input and comments. Outreach efforts consisted of the following strategies: Public Open House A public open house was conducted on June 16, 2010 at the Riverton City Hall. The purpose of the open house was to introduce the project to the public and to gain feedback from the public on the development of goals and objectives for the project. Advertising for the event included several strategies: STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE Bluffdale City Vaughn Pickell, City Planner Draper City Russell Fox, Comm. Development Director Herriman City Gordon Haight, City Engineer Heather Upshaw, Planner Property Reserve, Inc. Mike Hathorne, Senior Planning Manager Rio Tinto Jon Osier, Senior Transportation Specialist Riverton City Jeff Hawker, Assistant City Manager Ryan Carter, City Attorney Salt Lake County Max Johnson, County Planner South Jordan City Gary Whatcott, Assistant City Manager Utah Dept. of Transportation Tim Rose, Region 2 Deputy Director Utah Transit Authority GJ LaBonty, Planner Wasatch Front Regional Council Jory Johner, Project Manager Doug Hattery, Deputy Director Utility bill mailers Media advisory and publication of newspaper article Postings on city and agency websites Announcements in city newsletters

13 2 At the open house, educational materials were presented and project staff was available to answer questionss and to instill a general understanding of the process and technical information being presented. In addition, representatives from UTA and WFRC provided additional information on future planned transit for the open house attendees. There were interactivee areas of the open house where public provided comment. A summary of the comments is included in the Appendix. Public Workshop An interactive, public workshop was held on September 25, 2010 at the Riverton City Hall. The purpose of the workshop was to provide an overview of the study elements, study progress and to gain feedback on the short list of transit alternatives. Advertising for the event included several strategies: CITIZENS LEARN ABOUT PROJECT AT PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE Media advisory Postings on city and agency websites City and agency Facebook pages and Twitter feeds Announcements in city newsletters Project epresentativess outlined the study elements and proposed transitt alternatives. Participants were invited to discuss the transit alternatives in small groups and provide comments on the pros and cons of each alternative. Copies of the comment worksheets are provided in the Appendix. Online Survey An online survey was conducted to gain feedback on the short list of transit alternatives. Participants in the first open house were invited to take the survey, which was posted in conjunction with notification of the workshop described above. A copy of the survey and survey results are included in the Appendix. STUDENT INVOLVEMENT As part of the Southwest Salt Lake County Transit Feasibility Study, the consultant team worked closely with a group of five students from the University of Utah s College of Architecture + Planning. These students, who were participating in a two-semester course studying land use and transportation, had already given considerable thought to the Study Area and had prepared materials for the project team in advance of meeting with the consultants. The students activities fell into three tasks: data collection efforts; a field review on April 12, 2010; and a presentation to the project s Steering Committee on April 29, While the students were not part of the Stakeholder Committee, they did contribute valuable information to the study through data collection and synthesis.

14 3 Data Collection Efforts The students involvement supported analysis of existing conditions in the Study Area through data collection. The students focused their attention on four primary topic areas: natural environment, transportation, socioeconomics, and land use. The data collected are summarized below. Natural environment: AGRC GIS shapefiles of major rivers, streams, wetlands, and soils; air quality and pollutant charts; and documentation of the Kennecott South Zone Superfund site. Transportation: Regional ridership data from WFRC, transportation master plans for Herriman and Riverton, existing bus routes for Herriman and Riverton, and ridership and construction cost information on the soon-to-be-completed Mid-Jordan TRAX LRT line. Socioeconomics: Population, income, and journey-to-work data from the 2000 Census for Bluffdale, Draper, Herriman, Riverton, and South Jordan. Land use: Zoning maps for Bluffdale, Draper, Herriman, Riverton, and South Jordan, as well as local tax rates. The students data collection efforts were supplemented by a field trip, led by staff from the consultant team, UTA, and WFRC. The students collected additional information during the field trip, including: Activity Centers: location, jurisdiction, status (existing vs. proposed), transit access, bicycle access, pedestrian access, and intensity of activity Transportation Corridors: number of travel lanes, presence of median, transit features, bicycle and pedestrian elements, presence of parkstrips and on-street parking, and utility components. Photo library of multiple locations throughout the Study Area. This information helped the students further develop their ideas about transportation and land use conditions in the Study Area, and think through potential barriers and constraints. Presentation The students compiled their research and data collection efforts into a PowerPoint presentation, which was delivered to members of the Stakeholder Committee. The presentation summarized demographic and employment trends; existing transportation and land use conditions; and traffic and transit data, including ridership, average daily traffic (ADT), vehicle miles travelled (VMT), and level of service (LOS) on local roads. The students also presented a range of alignment alternatives, demonstrating the connections between alignments and population and employment centers. In addition, they provided an overview of next steps: identifying mode alternatives, selecting a preferred alternative, conducting the NEPA process, and establishing a funding source.

15 4 2. STUDY AREA The Study Area is a 33-square-mile region in the southwestern portion of Salt Lake County, Utah, and includes portions of South Jordan City, Herriman City, Riverton City, Bluffdale, and Draper. The general Study Area boundaries, shown in Figure 1, are 6000 West on the west, 200 West on the east, South on the south, and South on the north. This region has been the focus of numerous transportation studies and investments. Mountain View Corridor, Mid-Jordan TRAX, FrontRunner South, and the Draper TRAX extension will all be operational within the next five years. Bus rapid transit (BRT) on 5600 West into Herriman is on the WFRC Long Range Transportation for The West Salt Lake County Transit Study identified a route to serve the needs of this area, as shown in Figure 2. Transportation-related decisions have a big impact on a community. These choices not only influence land use patterns that shape where people work, live, shop, and recreate, but they define the type of community. Some communities promote higher-density development and walking to foster a vibrant urban feel; others wish to preserve a rural lifestyle yet remain accessible. Cooperative planning efforts undertaken by Salt Lake County reveal a high attractiveness for residential growth in the southwest portion of the County, paired with strong attractiveness for employment growth along the central transit lines in the Salt Lake Valley. Current transit within the Study Area is limited. The Riverton/Herriman Fast Bus route circulates on weekdays every 15 minutes with service from Herriman to Riverton and every 20 minutes with service to downtown. The West Jordan Fast Bus route connects Southwestern Salt Lake County to Downtown in the AM peak period on 15-minute headways and connects Downtown to Southwestern Salt Lake County in the PM peak period on 15-minute headways. In addition, UTA has recently introduced custom flex routes which also serve the area. Flex routes can deviate up to three-fourths of a mile from the standard route, thereby offering door-to-door transit service to a large area. Population is growing in this area of the Valley, perhaps faster than any other region on the Wasatch Front. In an effort to rebalance jobs and housing, additional efforts are underway to attract business to this area. Demographic projections are shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS FOR STUDY AREA Change Percent Change Population 77, , , % Households 20,400 69,100 48, % Total Employment 21, ,600 90, % Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council, summarized by Fehr & Peers (August 2010). To keep pace with the growth in the Study Area, numerous studies have been completed that recognize the need for improved transportation connections and additional investments that will be necessary to meet the mobility needs of the community. Plans relevant to this study are described below. Figure 2 shows the multitude of plans which have occurred in this area of the valley and the transportation corridors that have been recommended by those plans. Recent plans are:

16 Study Area Jordan River BANGERTER HWY 2700 WEST REDWOOD ROAD 1300 WEST FUTURE MID-JORDAN TRAX END OF LINE DAYBREAK STATION SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH BANGERTER HWY Study Area Future Transit EXISTING TRAX END OF LINE SOUTH SANDY CIVIC CENTER FUTURE FRONTRUNNER COMMUTER RAIL SOUTH STATION FUTURE FRONTRUNNER COMMUTER RAIL SOUTH DRAPER STATION FUTURE TRAX SOUTH DRAPER STATION FIGURE 1 MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR Existing West Jordan Fast Bus Existing Riverton/Herriman Fast Bus Miles

17 6 Salt Lake County East-West Transportation Study Completed in 2008, this study evaluated land use and travel demand needs in Salt Lake County. The study recommended several roadway expansion and transit enhancements projects within the Southwest Salt Lake County Study Area included in the Wasatch Front 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. In particular, this study recommended a BRT route to serve the Southwest part of Salt Lake County, connecting through Herriman, Riverton, and terminating in Draper. Mountain View Corridor EIS The Mountain View Corridor (MVC) is a north-south highway planned to extend from I-80 in Salt Lake County to I-15 in Utah County. The Record of Decision on the Final Environmental Impact Statement is dated November MVC will be located at approximately 5800 West to South and then southeast to connect to Utah County at Redwood Road. It will be built in phases, incrementally adding vehicle capacity and grade-separated interchanges. The MVC bisects the western portion of the Southwest Salt Lake County Study Area. In addition to the freeway component, the MVC project includes a fixed-guideway transit alignment on 5600 West between South and the Salt Lake City International Airport. The transit component will also be implemented in phases, initially as BRT and eventually converted to rail transit. West Salt Lake County Transit Study This 2009 study evaluated land use and transportation needs throughout the entire western portion of Salt Lake County for year-2040 and build-out conditions and provides the framework for the future transit system of the Regional Transportation Plan. Based on conclusions from this study, the proposed 5600 West transit route was assumed to function as a BRT route in The West Salt Lake County Transit Study recommends a BRT route in the Southwest Salt Lake County Study Area; however, this BRT alignment assumes a connection to a FrontRunner station near Bangerter Highway. Since the Westside Transit Study, the FrontRunner station was relocated from south of Bangerter Highway to South. Other relevant studies include: Draper Transit Corridor EIS This study recommends a light rail transit (LRT) extension from the existing Sandy Civic Center South Station to South through Draper. The Record of Decision on the Final Environmental Impact Statement is dated September FrontRunner South ESR This 2008 study analyzed the impacts of the FrontRunner extension from Salt Lake City south into Utah County. In 2009 the Bluffdale Station near Bangerter Highway was reevaluated and replaced with a station at South. South Salt Lake County Transit Corridors Analysis This study was completed in 2000 and identified several corridors for Light Rail expansion. Relevant to the Southwest Salt Lake County Feasibility Study, the Draper Extension was recommended. Just north of the study area, the West Jordan Extension and the Towne Center spur were also identified.

18 WEST BRT MID-JORDAN TRAX DRAPER TRAX Jordan River EAST-WEST TRANSPORTATION STUDY Transit Improvements North-South TRAX FRONTRUNNER COMMUTER RAIL Draper TRAX WEST SALT LAKE COUNTY TRANSIT STUDY Mid-Jordan TRAX 5600 West BRT FrontRunner Commuter Rail Commuter Rail Station Previously Studied Transit Alignments 15 East-West Transportation Study MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR West Salt Lake County Transit Study Miles Relevant Projects and Studies FIGURE 2

19 8 3. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT WHAT IS PURPOSE AND NEED? According to Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance on preparing alternatives analyses, the purpose and need establishes the problems which must be addressed in the analysis; serves as the basis for the development of project goals, objectives, and evaluation measures; and provides a framework for determining which alternatives should be considered as reasonable options in a given corridor. During the feasibility stage of a transit project it is important to outline the problems to be addressed, the goals set by the community, as well as the purpose and need statement for the project. Thoughh refinements may occur during future study, the purpose and need is the framework for the project as it moves forward. PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE STUDY AREA A careful analysis of the existing and future conditions in the Study Area, and in some cases in the region, was undertaken to understand the problems facing the southwest area of Salt Lake County. The following problem statements were identifiedd as a result of analyzing the future transportationn conditions in the Study Area. Based on the population, and employment projections, and travel demand projections, the following were identified as the top three issues related to transportation in Southwest Salt Lake County: 1. Limited access to transit in the southwest area of Salt Lake County The Mid-Jordan TRAX extension will continue to serve the Daybreak subdivision in South Jordan, but as the population, employment, and travel needs of the southwest part of Salt Lake County grow, highof this frequency/high-capacity transit will be neededd to serve those trips beyond the last station extension. Three planned transit projects will erminate just short of the Study Area, including the Mid- to Jordan TRAX line, ending at Daybreak (shown below). A park and ride is planned to provide access this line from the surrounding communities. The FrontRunner station will provide park and ride access to Riverton, Draper, and Herriman communities, but is located at the edge of the Study Area and far from the projected growth in housing and jobs in Herriman and Riverton. The Draper Light Rail Extension project will provide TRAX service to the eastern perimeter of Draper, and will not be easily accessible for mid- and western-valley communities. This limited access to higher speed and higher frequency transit hinders the choice to ride transit for the Southwest. 2. Inability of the transportation network to accommodate the increase in travel demand due to residential and office growth. The land uses within the Study Area are generally suburban, with isolated commercial use and office parks. The Study Area is unique in that it includes some of the only remaining contiguous open lands in Salt Lake County, and these contiguous parcels provide an opportunity for an increasee in residential and office development. The cities recognize citizen desire for more local employment and retail options,

20 9 including urban mixed-use these mixed-use elements, cities within the Study Area are working to address and meet centers that offer commercial, office, and housing options. By diversifying land uses to include their citizens needs. The increase in land development and residential growth will contribute to an increase in travel demand within the Study Area. Furthermore, travel demand will increase for trips that originate or end in the Study Area. Figure 3 shows areas of high employment and population growth. Figure 4 represents travel demand in terms of total daily trips, forecasted in The distribution of total trips and work trips is heavily weighted to neighboring communities to the east and north of the Study Area. Throughout the Study Area there are a number of developments with potential transit-supportivin South Jordan, for example, has densities. The Daybreak subdivision proven a successful model for planned communities with mixed residential types at generally higher densities than traditional suburban developments. According to municipal plans, much of the future development in the Study Area is expected to occur in a fashion compatible with transit, by defining dense, mixed-use focal points within the community. Because a large portion of this development is planned in green-field areas, there are fewer barriers to transit corridors than might otherwise exist in a built-out urban environment. The planned growth in population and employment will increase demandd on the transportation system. On a regional scale, daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is expected to grow from 37 million to 65 million, comparing between current conditions and a freeway-oriented growth option (Source: WFRC Long Range Plan). This equates to a growth of 78%. Between 2005 and 2040, daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is forecasted to increasee by 254% within the Study Area - this equates to an averagee annual growth of 3.7%. By 2040, as much as 25% of p.m. peak period VMT in the Study Area is expected to occur on highly congested roads at or near capacity, contributing to low travel speeds and high levels of delay. Both north-south and east-west corridors have high volume-to-capacity ratios in Traditional methods may not be sufficient to accommodate trips to major destinations in the Valley. Figure 5 shows the demand for vehicle travel will exceed the roadway capacity on certain sections of roadway in the Study Area, resulting in congested conditions. Figure 5 includes planned improvements included in the WFRC Long Range Plan. high-frequency/high-capacity transit can provide an option to serve this demand without building wide roadways that can divide communities and make pedestrian travel difficult. 3. Increasing difficulty traveling east/west in the Study Area The Salt Lake Valley has long devoted resources to moving people in a north-south direction. More recent needs have been identified to move people east-west. Figure 4 shows the demand for travel will reflect a growing need for east west travel options. Figure 5 shows peak period congestion in 2040 on the major routes within the Study Area. Level of Service (LOS) is a measuree of the ability of a roadway to accommodate the demand for travel on that roadway. A LOS E or F, which is reflected in red and black, essentially indicates highly congested roadway segments. By 2040 all of the major east-west arterials in the Study Area west of Bangerter Highway will be highly congested, including South, South, and South. East of Bangerter Highway, both South and South will be congested. Without robust transit infrastructure, travelers will lack choice to avoid this congestion.

21 South Jordan 15 Sandy V Riverton Herriman Draper Bluffdale Population Change High Growth (1,000-3,000 persons) Very High Growth (>3,000 persons) South Jordan Sandy 15 Riverton Herriman Draper Bluffdale Employment Change High Growth (500-1,000 jobs) Very High Growth (>1,000 jobs) Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council, 2010 Study Area Municipal Boundaries Jordan River Miles Population and Employment Growth ( ) FIGURE 3

22 2005: 5, : 18,900 Change: 253% Davis Co. Salt Lake Co. 2005: 37, : 154,500 Change: 314% 2005: 16, : 39,700 Change: 136% 2005: 20, : 54,900 Change: 170% 2005: 80, : 389,100 Change: 385% 2005: 102, : 233,000 Change: 128% Salt Lake Co. 2005: 132, : 548,200 Change: 314% Utah Co. Daily Trips < 35,000 35,001-65,000 65, ,000 > 175,000 Study Area Miles 2005: 6, : 67,900 Change: 1029% 2005: 19, : 98,700 Change: 411% 2005: 12, : 43,500 Change: 248% Existing and Future Travel Demand FIGURE 4

23 15 Roadway Level of Service LOS F LOS E LOS D LOS C or better Study Area 15 Source: WFRC Regional Travel Demand Model, Volume-to-capacity ratio summarized by Fehr & Peers Peak Period Congestion in 2040 FIGURE 5

24 13 GOALS The project goals are a summary of the feedback gained from the Stakeholder Committee and through public outreach. Based on the results of a questionnaire distributed to each of these representatives, as well as open discussion in committee meetings, the team identified the following study goals (i.e. that transit in the Study Area should accomplish the following): Address east-west congestion Address circulation within communities Increase multi-modal options, reduce congestion, improve air quality Support economic development and redevelopment through the diversification of land uses including office and mixed-use growth Improve communication between jurisdictions on transportation issues and solutions Maximize efficiency of available resources by reducing energy consumption related to transportation PURPOSE The purpose statement was developed to reflect the goals of the project. The purpose of a transit project is to better connect the southwest area of Salt Lake County with the regional transit system in order to improve transportation choice and mobility within the Study Area, as well as to important regional destinations. NEED The project needs were developed to address the problems identified in this Study Area, and to move towards meeting the goals of the project team. The project needs are: To provide additional capacity to the transportation network in the Study Area To reduce the negative effects associated with population and employment growth, and congestion To support local land use plans to diversify and densify land use, including job centers and mixeduse developments Provide additional transportation options to enhance livability and sustainability for the communities in the Study Area Provide additional capacity to the transportation network in the Study Area Additional capacity is needed to serve the growing number of trips anticipated in the Study Area by 2040, and without the completion of the transit network the only approach will be to widen roadways. With many roadways predicted to be at or over capacity within the Study Area, alternative modes are needed to increase travel capacity, especially for east-west travel. Reduce the negative effects associated with population and employment growth and congestion Transit connections to the Southwest Salt Lake County area are necessary to reduce the negative effects associated with the trips generated by employment growth. The planned growth in population and employment will increase demand on the transportation system. Between 2005 and 2040, daily VMT is forecasted to increase by 254% within the Study Area - this equates to an average annual growth of

25 14 3.7%. By 2040, as much as 25% of p.m. peak period VMT in the Study Area is expected to occur on highly congested roads at or near capacity, contributing to low travel speeds and high levels of delay. Support local land use plans to diversify and densify land use, including job centers and mixed use developments Significant growth is expected to occur in the Study Area over the next 30 years. There are substantial amounts of undeveloped land in the western portion of the Study Area, where high population growth is planned. Redevelopment projects in established areas also contribute to the overall regional growth, and several projects are currently being planned. Employment growth is planned to be clustered around the Mountain View Corridor and I-15 corridors. The Herriman Towne Center is planned to include mixed-use development with both housing and employment. In Riverton, additional properties are being considered for higher-density, transit-oriented development. Property adjacent to the South FrontRunner station in Draper has been rezoned for very high-density, mixed-use development. Transit is needed to support quality growth, versus lower-density housing. Provide additional transportation options to enhance livability and sustainability for the communities in the Study Area. Livability and sustainability relates to the quality of life for residents in the Salt Lake Valley and in the Study Area. The ability for transportation to improve access to jobs, reduce emissions, improve air quality, and save travel time is an important aspect of a transit project in the Study Area. It should also be noted that livability and sustainability have become key criteria for the Federal Transit Administration in terms of the assessment of new capital transit projects. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA Together, the goals and purpose and need statement above shaped the development of several of the criteria used to evaluate each alternative. Additional criteria designed to measure performance and competitiveness were added so the analysis of alternatives would lead to a feasible project with such considerations as cost effectiveness and public support. The process to evaluate alternatives included the following steps: Identification of all Alternatives A workshop was conducted with the Stakeholders in which a range of alternatives was identified. Sometimes called the universe of alternatives, the exercise provided a starting point for analysis, and was refined and supplemented by the technical team to produce a long list of alternatives. Development of Alternatives A Level 1 qualitative screening was performed on each of the Long List of Alternatives. The result of this screening was the identification of the alternatives for final analysis (Short List of Alternatives). Analysis of Final Alternatives A Level 2 quantitative screening was performed on the Short List of Alternatives. At the close of this screening, a Preferred Alternative was selected. Preferred Alternative Additional measures were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the Preferred Alternative, including sustainability and capacity improvements. Table 2 shows the evaluation criteria, the methodology, and at which level of analysis the criterion was used.

26 15 TABLE 2 EVALUATION CRITERIA Ridership Criteria Description Methodology Cost and Cost Effectiveness Construction Constraints Compares alignments and modes at each level of screening to determine the effectiveness of each alternative at generating riders. Compares alignments and modes at each level of screening, and provides a comparison of the cost effectiveness of each alternative. This information was used to help guide cost comparisons. WFRC Regional Travel Demand Model was used to prepare the comparisons at Levels 1 and 2. This information was supplemented with additional projections at Level 2. New riders to the system was also used as a measure to compare effectiveness at Level 2. A preliminary order-of-magnitude estimate of cost per mile was prepared for each alternative during Level 1. Costs were paired with ridership to determine a conceptual cost effectiveness indicator for Level 2. An engineering field review was conducted to assess the potential difficulties of constructing various transit alternatives. Level of Analysis 1 and Travel Time Compares the mobility effectiveness of alignments and modes by comparing the travel time between destinations. The WFRC Regional Travel Demand Model was used to predict travel times between Mid-Jordan end of line and the Draper FrontRunner station. In addition, consideration was given to travel times to downtown and other destinations. 1 and 2 Access to Transit Measures the increase in populations and employment served by each alternative GIS was used to determine the number of households and jobs within ½ mile of proposed station locations, which was then used to analyze potential transit ridership 1 and 2 Support for TOD Plans Compares among alternative alignments and modes the ability to serve or promote transit-oriented development An off-model exercise to determine the effectiveness of transit oriented development in producing riders. In addition, this exercise helped inform the Cities and potential developers the density and intensity needed to support transit. 2 Sustainability and Livability measures Reduction of GHG and other sustainability measures. Ridership, travel time, and support for TOD are all effective proxies used during the alternatives analysis to support this concept. Technical Evaluation Final Analysis Public Support and Community Context Public sentiment about each of the alignments and modes. Community context with respect to modes. Public sentiment was gathered at an open house in June, 2010, and at a public workshop in September, and 2